Ad
News

Gateway Retail Dumps Intel for AMD CPUs

Published on January 30, 2008

Gateway officially announced its new high-end retail desktop PC offerings. At least for now, the company has switched from Intel quad-core CPUs to AMD quad-core Phenom 9500 and 9600 CPUs. Read more

AMD: Some Phenoms Delayed To Q2, Some Pulled Into Q1

Published on January 11, 2008

AMD has clarified its desktop processor introduction plans late Friday, following media reports that certain Phenom CPUs would be delayed. Read more

Nvidia To Launch 55 Nm GeForce 9500 GT GPU In Q4

Published on July 30, 2008

Nvidia is planning to launch a 55nm version GeForce 9500 GT GPU in the fourth quarter this year, according to sources at graphics card makers. Read more

AMD To Showcase Triple-core CPUs At CeBIT 2008, Faster Quad-cores A No-show

Published on February 04, 2008

AMD expects to launch its triple-core Phenom 8400 and 8600 at CeBIT 2008 along with its low-power quad-core Phenom 9100e, however the quad-core Phenom 9700 and 9900 CPUs, which were originally scheduled to launch at the same time, will be delayed for both launch and showcase to a later time, according to sources at motherboard makers. Read more

Latest Reviews & Articles

System Builder Marathon: Performance & Value

Published on January 01, 2009

We’ve built, overclocked, and tested our $625, $1,250, and $2,500 performance machines. How will these three systems compare in overall performance and value? Read more

System Builder Marathon: $2,500 Enthusiast PC

Published on December 31, 2008

We’ve seen how far a moderately priced Core i7 system can take us and now we’re ready to assess the performance advantages of better cooling and a stronger graphics configuration. Will our upgrades be worth the money? Read more

System Builder Marathon: $1,250 Mid-Range PC

Published on December 30, 2008

We see how far $1,250 gets us when building a new Core i7-based system, and how it compares to last month’s similarly priced Core 2 Duo machine. Read more

SSDs Replacing HDDs Soon? Not A Chance

Published on December 29, 2008

Some say 2010 and even 2009 will be the year of SSDs. We think not. Read more

  Tom's Hardware Forums » CPU & Components » CPUs » Athlon 64 x2 6400 or Phenom 9500?
 

Athlon 64 x2 6400 or Phenom 9500?




Word :   Username :  
 
 Page : 1 2
Previous
Author
 Thread : Athlon 64 x2 6400 or Phenom 9500?
 
Profile: stranger
More Information

Is Phenom 9500 confiable?
I seeking for a new PC, but i'm having serious problems with processor.
Wich i choose, Athlon x2 64 6400 Black Edition or Phenom 9500?
Both since to be a good choice but I heard that Phenom have some bugs.

Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

Easy... X2 6400 BE.


---------------
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h82/TXSuperFly03/478x88copy.png
Profile: old hand
More Information

You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/1 [...] lon_64_x2/

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!

Resident Jerk
Profile: Faithful Poster
More Information

...Wierd double post.


Message edited by cnumartyr on 12-24-2007 at 06:36:39 AM

---------------
TeamBAG Member
Resident Jerk
Profile: Faithful Poster
More Information

hughyhunter wrote :

You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/1 [...] lon_64_x2/

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!




3.2 GHz vs 2.3 GHz... I don't think IPC is going to help there.

What do you plan to use the PC for?


---------------
TeamBAG Member
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

hughyhunter wrote :

You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/1 [...] lon_64_x2/

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!



Really... getting a quad core that is currently crippled, and incomplete?
X-bit labs on Phenom's performance.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] om_11.html

As you can see here, Phenom 9500 is outperformed by 6400 X2, in almost all of the benchmarks (except synthetic).

Most programs don't use over a single core, and there are very few of them use over two cores. For desktop applications, it will be a long while before we see many programs that seriously take advantage of 4 cores. For a desktop user, more core counts don't mean as much as more clockspeed.

On the other hand, AMD's 90nm process is far superior than their 65nm process.


---------------
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h82/TXSuperFly03/478x88copy.png
Profile: addict
More Information

yomamafor1 wrote :

Most programs don't use over a single core, and there are very few of them use over two cores. For desktop applications, it will be a long while before we see many programs that seriously take advantage of 4 cores.



True, but programs that really _need_ that kind of performance are going to support quad cores fast, if they don't do so already. Word doesn't need four cores (or even two), but, for example, video compression needs all the CPU power it can get; the video compression program I use has supported 'dual cores' at least since the hyperthreading era, I presume it supports quads now too.

Resident Jerk
Profile: Faithful Poster
More Information

MarkG wrote :

True, but programs that really _need_ that kind of performance are going to support quad cores fast, if they don't do so already. Word doesn't need four cores (or even two), but, for example, video compression needs all the CPU power it can get; the video compression program I use has supported 'dual cores' at least since the hyperthreading era, I presume it supports quads now too.




Which is why it's important to know what he intends to use the processor for.


---------------
TeamBAG Member
Profile: old hand
More Information

With all being said... it doesnt really matter what he is going to use his comp for... the future is quad core. Even if all he wants to do is play games- crysis is utilizing all four cores right now... so games in the coming months should too.

Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

hughyhunter wrote :

With all being said... it doesnt really matter what he is going to use his comp for... the future is quad core. Even if all he wants to do is play games- crysis is utilizing all four cores right now... so games in the coming months should too.



Actually, Crysis only utilizes two cores maximum. The only game I know of that really takes advantage of quad core, is Supreme Commander. However, the difference is no more than 10%.

Quad core may be the future. It really depends on how the program is written in the first place. Since desktop applications are not CPU-intensive like server applications, it will be a while before quad core becomes the mainstream.


---------------
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h82/TXSuperFly03/478x88copy.png
Other Forum Pr!ck
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

yomamafor1 has my vote ... tho the 5000+ is a good option (albeit they have half the cache) because they run cooler and chew a bit less power.

The 90nm process is superior as the higher end chips use the 2 X 1MB mask and AMD only made a 2 X 512K mask for the 65nm cores.

If it is for gaming get a 6000+ or 6400+.
General purpose? Get a 5000+.
Overclocker ... 5000+ black edition. (best of both worlds).

Sometime early next year AMD will have done a respin and their quad core cpu's will hopefully be up to spec ... then you can upgrade simply by swapping chips.

That's why I would recommend a cheaper X2 cpu like the 5000+ ... you won't be throwing away so much money.

I won't touch their Phenom till it is sorted ... and I am an AMD fan ... just not a stupid one.


---------------
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

CTRL-ALT-DE1337
Profile: addict
More Information

Hey, I know that there's been lots of egg nog goin down my gullet lately and I'm not realy lucid :) but can someone anyone explain to me why you would buy a curent Phenom? If I put an ad up for a bike that said "the engine might just stall on you when you're on the highway passing a bus" do you think anyone would actually be dumb enough to buy it? Or maybe I should adopt the current stance of AMD which is (rumored) to be "lets release a fixed version to compete with Nehalem," which is the bike eqivalent of "Buy my 250cc Chinese V-twin... it's about the same price as a new Harley... but at least we've fixed the problem that has you stall in front of a bus."

I've owned AMD in the past and they've been perfectly fine chips. I'd be happy to consder them again for my next build. But theyre not even on the Radar Screen. Not because I'm a Intel fanboi. Because AMD right now is not even close to being in the enthusast CPU market!

That's my opinion and now I'll go back to more eggynoggy! yum yum yum! :)

Other Forum Pr!ck
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

Chinese V-Twin ... jeez they aren't that bad. That's a Cryix.

Russian outboard motor is probably closer to the truth ... gutsy but hard to start ... lol.

From Ferrari (AM64) to Russian outboard motor all due to not listening to the engineering team and rushing out a product not ready for market.


---------------
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Profile: journeyman
More Information

It's more like the engine might explode if it's hot and you press the gas to hard and name a few more reasons in desktop environment, or so they want us to believe I am not sure I don't own one.

The reason to buy a phenom would be the price. It's very cheap now, though you are still buying a "damaged" product. It's not worth it and as yomamafor1 says (can't believe I agree with him for once) a quadcore is not needed yet for desktop. It's great if you want to get the best performance, but for mainstream it's not needed yet. As most said, the change to dual core from single was bigger advancement then the change to quad will be. A lot of people will skip this step probably going for 8 or 16, depending on the speed of the cpu market and the slowness of the program market.

I would say get the 5000+ or 6400+ depending on your budget. If you got more money get the 6400, if you can get a better video card by going for the 5000+ do that, in the end for gaming, a good video card is worth more then a faster cpu.

CTRL-ALT-DE1337
Profile: addict
More Information

Ok, reynod, not Chinese Vtwin but Ural flat twin! Just as useless and clunky and faulty and sold only to people who dont have the brains G-d gave a squirrel. :)

Trinix, what planet are you living on? Is it planet Hectoria Prime, the one where Phenoms are cheaper than C2Q? :) Everywhere I'm looking I'm finding Q6600 which is a 2.4 part that actualy works (wow... actually works...) cheaper than the 2.3 AMD that doesn't. If I sell an engine that I know the crankpin is going to break if it gets hot and it gets throtled too hard then I deserve to be put out of business by lawsuits. Why does none of this apply to AMD?

I would advise OP to forget AMD, if he has an AM2 or something board to crack it in half over his knee and buy a product that is competitive, comptetively priced, and is acknowliged to work!

Paul O, you can send me my commision check now! :)

Profile: stranger